Talk:Ombra mai fu

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Cafe del Mar

There is a song by this name on the Cafe del Mar Aria 3 Metamorphosis album. Should this be trivia?81.104.186.166 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia or not, it is against WP guidelines. User:DannyDaWriter/Sig [02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]

I disagree: citing from the guidelines' "what trivia is not": "... a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." I suggest expanding this page with a section heading Discography having subheadings for classical (per arrangement, i.e. vocal vs. instrumental solo/ensemble) vs. contemporary renditions. -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, per rough consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{movereq|Ombra mai fu}}

Ombra mai fù → Ombra mai fu —

Misspelled title! "Ombra mai fu" is the correct spelling in Italian language! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.81.68 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a quick search [1] indicates that the nominator's assertion is correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 13 October 2010
Oppose: this seems a more reliable source to me. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Italian wikipedia... "fù" is a common misspelling. The source cited is a German score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.81.68 (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth pointing out that the piece was written by a German in England - the error may be original and authentic almost-instinct 18:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe~~ – Contemporary use is definitely "fu" without accent; my dictionary says so, as do the Italians here, as does the libretto mentioned at Serse (which is not a historical edition). But it's entirely possible that 270 years ago it had an accent – Italian was very different then. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winton Dean, Alan Blyth, and Grove (in eight different articles) all give "fù" (with accent). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe support? Winton Dean, the doyen of Handel scholars, doesn't use the accent [2]. That swings it for me. [Although Michael says he does. Hmmm....] --Folantin (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blush – I looked at the same page and misread the single apostrophe. Here's the Blyth snippet, with accent. And I'm sure I didn't misread Grove.

Either way, given that current usage is without accent, I don't think such a move would be wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

Oppose move. In matters of naming the WP:WikiProject Opera has always used Grove as our authoratative guide. I see no reason to divert from that practice now.4meter4 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move until someone can tell us what the original MS says. Is it still extant? almost-instinct 22:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's that important to reproduce exactly what the original manuscripts say, otherwise we'd have to write "j'estois" instead of "j'étais" for French Baroque operas and "die Thür" instead of "die Tür" for 18th century German ones, to take two examples. We go by what reliable, modern, secondary sources use. Since we have such reliable modern sources using both forms then it doesn't much matter which one we use. This is just a minor variation in Italian orthography over the centuries. --Folantin (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move for all the common sense reasons given above (by Folantin and others). --Smerus (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unaccented form seems much more common (per Google Books and Scholar), so if the accent doesn't add accuracy (it's not used in Italian) then I don't see why we're using it. --Kotniski (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Changed from "Maybe"; especially because of Winton Dean, which I initially misread, and, if "fù" is indeed archaic, for the reasons Folantin gave. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations

There are absolutely no citations in this article. Can someone fix that? -- Charles Stover 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bononcini

The article says Händel adapted the aria from Bononcini's setting. Well, we all know for Händel plagiarism was not a big issue. But what interests me is: how does Händel's version differ from his template? Ombra mai fu contains some genius twists and nuances, and I would love to know whether Händel put them in or not. Steinbach (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of the title?

It seems to me that "Ombra mai fu" is the title of a musical piece and therefore it should be capitalized, perhaps "Ombra Mai Fu". I do notice that the capitalization of internet articles is variable, so maybe I'm missing something.

Any insight? Madman (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FOREIGNTITLE is the guiding rule in this case. Sparafucil (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singer on first broadcast

In the first edition of Last Night a DJ Saved My Life, Bill Brewster had indeed suggested that Clara Butt was probably the singer of Ombra mai fu in the first radio broadcast. This was, however, removed in a later edition of the book. I believe that Butt did not record that piece until 1909. The singer on the original broadcast was likely Emma Albani. The Albani recording was made on 08.12.1903 according to http://www.truesoundtransfers.de/Titellisten/TT3001.htm^[1]. BTWaters (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "True Sound Transfers". True Sound Transfers.

November 2021

An anonymous editor and User:Sparafucil insisted on adding IMO dubious assertions about the aria's performance history, and claims about alternative English texts. They were added in the first instance without any sources, so I reverted them. Sparafucil then re-added them, with insufficient sources.

For the first claim, about performances sung by tenors or baritones, Sparafucil cited the section Serse § Performance history. This clearly contravenes WP:CIRCULAR and is not a valid citation. Further, I can't find any instance in that section supporting the claim. Note: I'm not disputing that tenors (e.g. Caruso, Domingo) and possibly baritones have sung the aria – the article says so in the next sentence – but not in a performance of Serse. Sparafucil then added an irrelevant name-drop of Wilder's Our Town to that section which makes it close to the much lamented "In popular culture" sections.

The second claim started as "Because the words don't make much sense out of the context of the opera, many editions use other words, both secular and sacred." which was then toned down, but still contains "An amusing example …" which is unacceptable writing on Wikipedia. The claim itself is referenced with a footnote, giving two examples, but no citation. The "amusing" phrase offered is not amusing to me at all – it's just a very flowery attempt of a poetic translation. It's supported by a single obscure source, so it doesn't seem to have wide currency.

The Our Town reference is gratuitous and should be removed. Unless those two other claims can be supported with reputable sources, they ought to be removed.

While I'm here, I'd also like to argue for the removal of the line that quotes a single reviewer's view of the aria's role in a Japanese film. The article on The Makioka Sisters doesn't mention Handel's music and even the reviewer admits that what can be heard in the film is a far cry from what Handel wrote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you (of all people) weren't amused, I'll try a different wording. Your reversion only caught my attention because the 8vb claim didn't strike me as remotely controversial; you could have easily added fuller references yourself. I added Our Town for the title "Handel's Largo", which I think was once far more widespread than 'Largo from Serse' (The Sunday Album of Sacred Songs (pp.46-47) London: Bayley & Ferguson, n.d.(ca.1911) actually gives the title as "Largo in G", the key I first encountered the piece as a cello student). The 'celebrated Largo' having a career independent of the opera and its own WP article, I think its own reception history could be expanded. Sparafucil (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "True Sound Transfers". True Sound Transfers.

[1]